Pope says uniting Christianity requires conversion

cna ^ | January 18, 2012 | David Kerr

[D-fendr]

No problem, FRiend, seems the moderator has it all cleaned up now.

[boatbums]

I await your companion piece on the Reformers with baited breath.

Wow, well I guess when all else fails, point to the other guys and say, "They did it too!". The difference in this example is that the Reformers never claimed that they were infallible nor that they were the only true church outside of which no one could be saved. That distinction is all yours, FRiend.

[D-fendr]

The point is to avoid anachronism, whether it be in scripture or the Church after the NT.

And, yes, to look both ways before pointing fingers.

Plus it would boost your credibility to learn what the doctrine of infallibility actually applies to.

:)

[D-fendr]

I should add that if Dr. Luther did not consider himself infallible on scripture, the word has no meaning. Remember he added the word “alone” to scripture to support his sola fide.

[boatbums]

I understand the Catholic Church's Doctrine of Infallibility. What is curious, in the previous post where I showed that certain Popes made ex-cathedra pronouncements, you made no comment at all at the blatant contradiction that resulted when subsequent Popes, in essence, overrule their predessesors. That wasn't the only example in the link. What you condemn non-Catholics for, in reading Scripture and understanding doctrines that go against those established by Rome, you fail to admit that Catholics basically have the same freedom with Scriptures not "infallibly" defined already by the Magesterium. In truth, very few Scripture verses have been interpreted infallibly for Catholics. You guys are kind of in the same boat.

Yet, on the basic tenets of the Christian faith with regard to the person and nature of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, salvation, heaven and judgment, there is very little leeway or difference between us. Of course, the "biggie" is salvation by grace through faith versus faith plus works, and there is no need for an outside infallible source when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures. I believe the Bible is quite clear regarding this major doctrine and it is why I and those along with me keep posting those Scriptures so that the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of those who seek the truth.

You want to stand next to your Magesterium with their infallible "traditions" to explain to me that what I can read for myself is not what it really means. All the while, the Holy Spirit is speaking to my heart saying, "Don't listen to them, hear me.". God's word is clear, maybe not about every single thing, but on this it is simply put, we are saved by the grace of God, not by what we do, only by our faith in what he did for us.

We can get bogged down in the little things - which delights the devil, BTW - and miss the MAIN thing, the Gospel. Once that is understood and accepted, God opens up the rest as we study, learn and grow in our faith. I've been a student of the Bible for over forty years and I still get awed by it. It is a deep, rich, deep ocean of treasure of which we can only hope to plunge in and explore the mind of God, in only the limited way human minds are capable. I don't have to know it all. I don't have to be infallible or rely on someone or something else that is, because it comes from God. Not just the words on paper but the spirit of truth.

Job 11:7-9
“Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens above—what can you do? They are deeper than the depths below—what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea.

Thanks for the conversation. I hope you have a peaceful night.

[Lera]

Were these priest posing with Joseph Goebbels ever excommunicated ?
How about Hitler , he baptized , was he ever excommunicated ?

[boatbums]

I should add that if Dr. Luther did not consider himself infallible on scripture, the word has no meaning. Remember he added the word “alone” to scripture to support his sola fide.

Luther declared that the Word of God is infallible. And can we PLEASE put this other false story to rest about Luther changing Scripture when he added the word "alone" to one verse? For a very good rebuttal to this specious charge, go to http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html. In it we read that Luther gave his reasons for translating that verse in Romans the way he did, and remember, he was translating the Bible into German. He says:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

The rest of the article explains:

Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Catholics ignore, and most Protestants are not aware of:

“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”

Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24). Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

I know this is not the first time this has been explain in the Religion Forum. Hopefully, it won't be thrown up again in an effort to accuse Luther of adding to the Word of God.

[D-fendr]

Wack a mole. As each of your ignorant slanders is refuted, you pop up with another.

Hitler rose to power on Protestant votes. He claimed to be following Luther’s effort, distributed Luther’s anti-semitic tracts. He was supported by several prominent protestants some of whom joined the Nazi Party.

The NY Times in an editorial on Christmas Day, 1941 wrote: “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas.”

Thousands of Catholic priests were murdered in the holocaust.

Many thousands of jews were saved by the efforts of the Pope, his bishops and Catholics in Europe.

In 1944, The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem sent the Pope a personal message of thanks: “The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world.”

Wack a mole - again.

History is still not your strong suit. Slander, however...

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your explanation. However, I think Luther himself explained his reason best - at the least more succinctly:

“If your new papist makes much ado about the word ‘alone’ just say straight out to him: ‘Dr. Luther will have it so, and says, papist and donkey are one and the same things; thus I will and am determined to have it; my will is the reason’.”

[D-fendr]

I appreciate you pointing out that Catholics have a great deal of freedom in reading and understanding Holy Scripture. We allow that it can have many levels of meaning and can relate quite personally.

However, as you point out, there are limits and Catholics cannot teach interpretations against dogma and doctrine of the orthodox faith.

Of course, there are no limits outside the Church, or rather for the church of the individual. Any and all doctrine or dogma is allowed.

I don’t see the differences as little things. The ‘hidden truths’ of dispensationalism - rediscovered in the last century - for example. Preposterous to those not of this teaching.

And salvation by election? Radically different than salvation by grace through faith.

Then there’s Unitarians of several stripes, Modalists, Monarchists, and Universalists. Key differences in Christology and soteriology. And, as we see today, the fracture of mainline protestant churches on Christian morals.

Sola scriptura is not scriptural and just too stupid an idea to be of any value in creating or sustaining the Apostolic Church. Not Christ’s idea, not Paul’s idea, not the one holy universal and apostolic Church idea.

In history we see what has resulted. Luther’s fear that every milkmaid becomes a theologian is realized. And where once there was the Christian Church, there arose the Lutheran Church, then Zwingli, then Calvin, then Anglican, Methodist, Episcopal, Baptist, then NonAnything... each individual his/her own faith, creed, and confession.

From Church to many churches, to unchurched - and darn proud of it!

The “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” of the New Testament Church? There could hardly be anything further from it imaginable short of atheism.

And thank you also for your courteous discussion. Hope you are sleeping well and have a glorious morning.

[Lera]

I’ll ask again .
Hitler was born and baptized a Roman Catholic .
Roman Catholics claim once a Catholic always a Catholic .
Why was he not excommunicated ?

Joseph Goebbels was born a Roman Catholic too .
Why did the Roman Catholic church not excommunicate him either?

BTW one of the first things Hitler did was round up the Protestant pastors that did not agree with him. And Hitler put a lot of Protestants in the camps too and killed a lot of them so don’t give me a lame excuse that he killed Catholics too . He killed a lot of people .None of which changes the fact that Hitler was not excommunicated .

[D-fendr]

You show ignorance of excommunication along with your other factual problems.

Should Hitler have still been in the Church, he would have been excommunicated latae sententiae under several canon laws, not the least of which is killing clerics and jews.

However, he left the Church long before his rise to power. You don’t bring someone who has left the Church back into the Church to tell them they can’t participate in communion in the Church when they are not participating in communion or the Church.

In short, your point is nonsense.

[D-fendr]

This map shows the influence of religious conviction on the Nazi vote for the Reichstag election 7/32. Elevation represents the share of Catholics / protestants (the higher, the more Catholics live in a Kreis) in relation to total population. The Nazi vote share is represented by different color shadings (dark red: highest NSDAP share; light green: lowest NSDAP share). The map reveals that the NSDAP strongholds are clearly restricted to protestant areas. This becomes very clear e.g. in East Prussia, where in a small catholic enclave the NSDAP performed very poorly in comparison to the surrounding Kreise dominated by protestants.

It is also inportant to note that of the 21 Nazi Germans tried as war criminals at Nuremberg 16 indicated they were "Protestant."
Protestant Support of the Nazi Government

[metmom]

There is a whole lot of born again Christians witnessing to muslims ... you don’t see them bowing down and kissing their book or walking into their mosque to pray with them .

Muslims are not going to come to Christ when they're being told that they're fine the way they are, that we all worship the same God and that the pope submits himself to them.

Jesus and the message of the cross is an offense to people, a stone of stumbling and an rock of offense.

[metmom]

Where is that distinction when each individual claims his or her own authority in determining and interpreting scripture?

Catholics are no different. When they decide to accept the RCC interpretation of Scripture, they are accepting it as their own. Their own personal interpretation happens to agree with the RCC when they accept the RCC one.

But either way, it is still an individual choice to accept a personal interpretation of Scripture. Just because any one Catholics happens to agree with any other one Catholics is irrelevant.

EVERY person's decision is a personal interpretation of Scripture. It just matters whose it is, whether it's the *church's* or your own.

[metmom]

Were these priest posing with Joseph Goebbels ever excommunicated ? How about Hitler , he baptized , was he ever excommunicated ?

You know the party line. Once a priest, always a priest, and once a Catholic always a Catholic.

and....

Don't you know, the Catholic church doesn't NEED to ex-communicate them, they ex-communicated themselves. It saved the RCC from having to take a stand and allows them to absolve themselves of the responsibility to man up and actually take action instead of just making threats.

[smvoice]

Defending the indefensible again? All you have to do is go back about 75 years to find the truth. And yet, that seems to be a bother. Or a threat..

Gullible and ignorant is reserved for those who, in the face of reality, choose to believe a fantasy. Whether it's a 75 year old rewrite of easily verifiable history. Or 2000 years of deceit, where truth was exchanged for a lie. And worshipped and defended as "truth". Not from the Word of God, mind you, but from men who rewrite history to make it fit their deceitful ends.

You won't even go back 75 years to find the truth. And yet you want me to believe that your church has 2000 years of "THE TRUTH"? lol!

Doesn't integrity mean anything to pawns?

[Jvette]

Good morning.

No time to jump in here as I am only on to check in with the airline for a trip I’m taking today.

Will be gone for several days.

Just wanted to thank you for living up to your sobriquet so well these past few days.

Enjoyed reading through your posts.

Have a great week.

[D-fendr]

Been there done that, continue to do that.

Suggest the same for you. Consider it a needed break from reading the new discoveries of 20th and 21st Century theologians.

[D-fendr]

EVERY person's decision is a personal interpretation of Scripture.

Or the decision to follow Christ through His Church over following oneself.